Philippines Top Court Sets Stricter Test for Proving Job Abandonment
The Philippine Supreme Court has ruled that an employee’s prolonged, unauthorized absences are not by themselves enough to justify dismissal for abandonment of work, reversing earlier findings by labor authorities and the Court of Appeals in a case involving agricultural firm Green Era Biotech and its manpower service provider, Great Value. In an 18-page decision dated Nov. 19 and issued by the tribunal’s Third Division, the high court found the two companies liable for the illegal dismissal of a production utility worker who had been absent from work for at least 18 days in 2018.
The worker, initially hired by Green Era Biotech in 2015 and later transferred to Great Value, was first absent for eight consecutive days due to illness. Great Value required him to explain his unauthorized absences, citing a company policy that allowed dismissal for at least five days of unexplained absence. He later incurred another nine straight days of absence, prompting the issuance of an absence without leave (AWOL) notice that characterized his conduct as serious misconduct and abandonment of work. After taking another leave with his supervisor’s permission, he was barred from entering the workplace and informed by his foreman that he had been declared AWOL, leading him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
In overturning the earlier rulings of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court stressed that abandonment as a just cause for dismissal has two elements: absence without a valid reason and a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employment relationship. The Court underscored that the second element is the more critical requirement and that the burden of proving both elements rests with the employer. “Mere absence from work, without more, will ordinarily fail to support a finding of abandonment of work, absent any overt act from the employee clearly showing that he or she intends to sever his or her employment,” the decision said.
While the justices acknowledged that the worker’s absences were “clearly unauthorized,” they found no evidence that he intended to abandon his job, noting instead that he had attempted to return to work and promptly challenged his dismissal before the labor tribunal. The Court ruled that his conduct did not amount to a “deliberate and unjustified refusal” to resume employment and that his absences did not merit the “severe penalty of dismissal.” It ordered his reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority and privileges, though without back wages, and held Green Era Biotech and Great Value jointly liable to pay separation pay if reinstatement is no longer feasible, along with nominal damages of 30,000 pesos.
